The Olympian Urges Voters to Reject Eyman and BP's Initiative 1053

The Olympian has come out with an editorial strongly opposing Initiative 1053. It's title "Initiative would give undemocratic veto power over budget" sums up one of the main arguments against Initiative 1053. Initiative 1053 would give 1/3 of the members of either House of the Washington State Legislature veto power over the state budget. What Eyman and special interests like Big Oil and Out of State Banks haven't been able to achieve by electing a majority of legislators that support their position, they are trying to achieve by changing the rules by which Legislators can operate.

The Olympian’s editorial board recommends a vote against this Eyman initiative.

Why? We elect lawmakers to balance the budget. If we don’t like the way they do it, we can send them packing. But it’s unfair to take away one of their tools — tax increases. This initiative essentially gives a narrow minority — 17 senators or 34 House members, the difference of a simple majority and supermajority — veto authority on budget matters.

That’s not right nor is it democratic.

The Olympian continues with pointing out that the public expects the government to provide services yet doesn't want to be taxed. People like Tim Eyman drone on endlessly and erroneously about the tax and spend Legislators. Yet as the Olympian notes:

Contrary to popular opinion tax increases are not the first solution for budget writers. In the past three years, lawmakers have dealt with a $12 billion shortfall. They’ve made $5.1 billion in program and service cuts; taken $3.6 billion in stimulus funds, transferred $1.7 billion from other funds; drawn down the ending fund balance and used money from the rainy day fund.

They’ve raised taxes by $800 million.

That’s a measured approach — certainly not “raise taxes as a first option.”

This nation and this state are on a financial precipice. We can tip in either direction. That economic uncertainty has consumers hunkered down and frightened.

This is no time to let a fraction of lawmakers dictate how this state’s budget is balanced.

Budget writing is a complex business with huge risks and people’s very lives at stake.

Tim Eyman’s “legislate by initiative” philosophy is an unwarranted intrusion into that complex decision-making process.

Vote “no” on Initiative 1053.

What the Olympian neglects to mention is that over a million dollars was spent to collect signatures using paid signature gatherers to put I-1053 on the ballot.  The big spenders as noted by Danny Westneat in the Seattle Times were not average citizens but special interests.

Why is Big Oil helping bankroll I-1053? It's because they oppose Legislative efforts to slightly increase toxic waste taxes to help cleanup storm water runoff. They would rather citizens bear the brunt of toxic waste problems including cleanup while they deposit bank record  profits as they have in recent years.

"...Tim Eyman went more corporate than usual this year.

His Initiative 1053, to limit the Legislature's tax-raising ability, has the type of stick-it-to-the-man appeal that you might think would get Joe Six-Pack to the ramparts.

Yet it's on the ballot due to big cash from out-of-state oil companies such as BP, Tesoro and Conoco, which want to block any new oil taxes. Only about 12 percent of his more than $1 million came from individuals, according to the state Public Disclosure Commission.

I-1053 is an example of greed in action. Citizens need to vote NO on 1053 so polluters rather than citizens have to pay for cleanup or in it's absence suffer continued polluting of Puget Sound and the environment.

For a list of other companies involved in greedy actions this years promoting special interest initiatives that pass the burden of taxes and/or lack of funding for public services  onto Washington taxpayers see http://www.stopgreed.org/

Ingraham NW Tree Grove Update - King County Superior Court Hearing Set for Nov 5, 2010

Resolution of the battle to save the Ingraham Tree Grove is moving forward. On Friday, King County Superior Court Judge Theresa Doyle turned down the Seattle School District's petition to remove the Court Injunction put in place by Judge Erlick two years ago to prevent the Seattle School District from cutting 70 trees in the grove to end further environmental review.

Judge Doyle also denied the Seattle School District's request for a $187,000 bond. It should be noted that Save the Trees-Seattle has in fact lowered the cost of whatever is built at Ingraham, not increased the cost. The bid, eg, for the compressed west addition came in at $6.5 million dollars. That's $3.5 million less than the original estimated cost by the Seattle School District.

Save the Trees-Seattle agreed to consolidate the two cases before the court. The original case was an appeal of the School District's Hearing Examiner process arguing that an EIS should have been performed and that a DNS was not appropriate.

The second case was an appeal of the City of Seattle inadequate mitigation of the Project. City law calls for giving a priority to protecting rare and uncommon plant and animal habitat. The City Hearing Examiner agreed the NW Tree Grove was an uncommon plant habitat in Seattle but did not require the Seattle School District to move the Project to another site on the campus.

Save the Trees- Seattle argued that moving the project to save the NW Tree Grove was one of the legal mitigation options the City had but did not exercise, despite the fact that the School District's BEX Project manager agreed under oath that the Seattle School District could build the Project on the open North Lawn and not have to cut down any mature trees.

The Seattle School District continued to deny that the North Lawn was feasible to build on until forced to acknowledge while under oath the existence of an internal e-mail obtained through public records disclosure that the North Lawn Area was actually considered a future building site for a 2 story addition to the school. Save the Trees - Seattle argues that the School District should build there now and save the NW Grove from being cut down or diminished in size needlessly.

The consolidated case is now scheduled to be heard before King County Superior Court Judge Theresa Doyle on Nov.5, 2010 at 11 AM. Save the Trees- Seattle has been working now for almost 3 years, trying to save the NW Grove.

Lack of Timely Congressional Public Disclosure is an Insult to the Voters

The latest campaign contribution and expenditure figures for Congressional races reported by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) are dated from the end of July 2010 for a report only through June 30, 2010. In an age of electronic and computer nimbleness when news can circulate the globe in a matter of seconds, campaign finance disclosure by candidates running for the US Senate and the House seem to be in the pre-telegraph era.

This antiquated campaign disclosure system hurts the democratic process by denying the public access to campaign spending and contribution information.  It is an insult to the public and benefits special interests trying to obscure and cloud the impact money is having in Congressional races. The public has a right to know who is contributing to candidates and how much is being spent. The current system is a failure for timely disclosure.

And this is not even discussing the most recent insult - the unfettered and unrestricted flow of special interest and corporate dollars flowing into committees and organizations, including those that are filed with the IRS as 501-c-4 organizations that are not required to disclose their donors at all.  This is all the result of the conservative faction put on the US Supreme Court which in their 5 to 4 decision of Citizens United vs the Federal Elections Commission ruled that money and free speech are one and the same.

Current reporting to the FEC by US Senate and House candidates is on a quarterly basis.  Reports are due April 15, July 15, Oct 15, and Jan 31.  There is an additional Pre-Primary and Pre-General Election report. The Pre-General Election report covers Oct 1 -13 and is due Oct 21.

Meanwhile amazingly, Presidential campaigns are required to report monthly as are Party organizations and PAC's.  Monthly reports are due on the 20th of the following month.

If you haven't yet figured it out, its Congress who set the reporting requirements for Congress to only report quarterly.  And a further delay is that while the House and Presidential campaigns file directly electronically with the FEC,  the Senate adds additional delay in reporting by first requiring that a PAPER copy be filed with the US Senate which then forwards that to the FEC. Yes the word PAPER is correct. Talk about being behind the times.

Meanwhile here in Washington State  reports for candidates are filed with our Public Disclosure Commission monthly, electronically and the deadline is the 10th of the following month.  This includes races for statewide office like Governor which encompasses obviously the same geographical area as a US Senate race.  

Two separate bills are before Congress to increase public disclosure that deserve public support. The first is a perennial bill to require Senate candidates to file electronic copies of their reports. This is Russ Feingold's bill,  the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act. He notes it would save taxpayers $250,000.  As Feingold states,

Under the current paper filing system, the FEC's detailed coding, which allows for more sophisticated searches and analysis, is completed over a week later for Senate reports than for House reports. This means that the final disclosure reports covering contributions made during the first two weeks of October are often not subject to detailed scrutiny before the election. Detailed campaign expenditure information is never available electronically because the FEC does not enter that information into its databases.

Help urge the US Senate to join the electronic computer era. Send an e-mail to your Senators urging they join the digital revolution in reporting campaign contributions. Click on the link to email Washington State's Senators:

Senator Maria Cantwell
Senator Patty Murray
To e-mail Senators in other states go to the US Senate website.

The other legislation that Republicans have blocked to date is the DISCLOSE Bill.  As noted in a citizen co-sponsor website at http://www.discloseact.com/

The DISCLOSE Act legislation will address seven major points:

1. Enhance Disclaimers

Make CEOs and other leaders take responsibility for their ads.

2. Enhance Disclosures

It is time to follow the money.

3. Prevent Foreign Influence

Foreign countries and entities should not be determining the outcome of our elections.

4. Shareholder/Member Disclosure

We should allow shareholders and members to know where money goes.

5. Prevent Government Contractors from Spending

Taxpayer money should not be spent on political ads.

6. Provide the Lowest Unit Rate for Candidates and Parties

Special interests should not drown out the voices of the people.

7. Tighten Coordination Rules

Corporations should not be able to “sponsor” a candidate

Please also urge your Senatore to pass this bill. The House has already done so.


For previous discussion of these issues see also:

US Senators Still Trying to Figure out Computers and Internet

Republicans in US Senate Stop Campaign Disclosure Bill

Republicans in US Senate Stop Campaign Disclosure Bill

The last thing Republicans want is to let the public know  where  campaign contributions spent supporting them are coming from.  Voting on a party line vote, US Senate Republicans voted to oppose disclosing corporate contributions and expenditures  being spent to try to put them back in power.  The measure known as the Disclose Act also included disclosure by unions but corporate contributions through PAC's and outside interest groups are likely to vastly exceed that of unions.

The New York Times  in its print edition misleadingly writes a headline entitled "Senate Democrats Fail to Advance a Campaign Finance Bill, an Obama Priority." It should have instead been entitled something like "Senate Republicans Stop Passage of Bill to Require Disclosure of Corporate Contributions". The vote was 59 for and 39 against on a procedural vote to cut off debate. No Republicans voted to end debate and all the Democrats did in an effort to bring the actual bill up for a vote.

 The online edition headline says "Small-Business Bill Advances; Campaign Finance Bill Stalls" which is more accurate in terms of what is in the article but the lead sentence repeats the statement that "Senate Democrats failed Thursday to advance campaign finance legislation that would force businesses, unions and others to disclose how they were spending money in political campaigns and where they were getting it."  The NY Times does a disservice to the public and its readers by failing to upfront attribute the failure to move the bill to the Republicans and their use of Senate rules to block a vote that clearly has a majority of Senators in support. Clearly the Democrats are behind disclosure.

Republicans continue to block passage of almost all legislation in the Senate in an attempt to brand the Democrats as unable to get things done.  Yet it is the Republicans who are cynically stopping action on bills, even on things they previously supported.  It remains bizarre that there are Americans who somehow think returning Republicans to power is going to make things work better. Ever since Obama got elected the Republican strategy  was to oppose anything the Democrats proposed. They were not concerned about putting Americans back to work, they were only motivated by putting themselves back in power.

 Republicans have no new answers, they knee jerk oppose taxes of all kind - witness their support of retaining the Bush tax cuts for millionaires despite the fact that this would increase the deficit  because money would have to be borrowed at taxpayer expense to cover these tax breaks.Witness their continued opposition to financial reform despite the fact that financial deregulation and lack of oversight and accountability contributed heavily to our current recession. Witness their opposition to health care reform despite the fact that the system was broken and private insurance companies were raising premiums much faster than inflation to add to their profits.

Democrats have accomplished a lot despite Republican opposition to most of what they've done. If  Republicans controlled the White House or the US Senate, imagine who might have nominated for the US Supreme Court. As Robert Creamer wrote on the Huffington Post in August, Democrats have been fighting for the average American and winning the battle against corporate special interests.

Democrats won the battle with Wall Street and the Republicans to rein in the power of the big Wall Street banks. We won the battle to begin holding insurance companies accountable and prevent them from discriminating against people with "pre-existing conditions." We won the battle to rescue the economy from the death spiral created by Bush administration policies and the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks.

Democrats and Independents who want to keep our country moving forward to solve our pressing problems need to turn out and vote and support the Democratic ticket.  There is no such thing as not taking a position in an election.  If you don't vote, you are letting others make a decision for you.  In this election Republicans have said they are more inclined to vote than Democrats by a wide margin.  Not voting and opposing this Republican enthusiasm is the same thing as voting for the Republicans.  Every voter has a vote. Use it. Democrats can win if those who want to keep moving America forward just get out and vote. Here in Washington State for most voters it is just filling out and mailing your ballot. Not a lot to ask considering the possible consequences of not voting.

You can go to the King County Democrats web pages to see a list of endorsed candidates and ballot measures.

See also NPI Advocate post for more information on the Disclose Act.

Futurewise Urges a No Vote on Initiative 1053

Initiative 1053 is an initiative sponsored by Tim Eyman and backed by  corporate funding from oil companies like BP and Conoco Phillips and banks like Bank of America, Wells Fargo and US Bank. It is special interest legislation trying to give a minority of 1/3 of the State Legislators supporting these corporate interests veto power over the majority of Legislators. It is undemocratic and unconstitutional. Yet that doesn't stop these special interests from trying to pull a fast one on Washington voters.

Many statewide organizations are opposing Initiative 1053. Futurewise has joined the Coalition against Initiative 1053 as have other environmental groups like the Washington Conservation Voters and the Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club. Futurewise describes itself as  "a statewide public interest group working to promote healthy communities and cities while protecting farmland, forests and shorelines today and for future generations." It recently celebrated its 20th anniversary of working.

Futurewise provides the following reason for their opposition to Initiative 1053:

Tim Eyman’s Initiative 1053 would institute minority rule in Washington state, empowering one-third (plus one) of the members of either the state House or Senate to prevent the majority from closing tax loopholes or raising new revenues.  BP, Conoco Philips, and Tesoro are some of the top funders behind I-1053. For the past two years, the statewide Environmental Community of which Futurewise is a member, has prioritized the Clean Water Act of 2010 – a $100 million investment in clean water infrastructure through either a fee or tax on polluters. If I-1053 passes, it will be even more difficult to make polluters like petroleum companies pay to clean up their messes. Futurewise encourages you to Vote NO I-1053.

I think Futurewise is understating the impact of I-1053 on our ability to enact legislation requiring polluters to pay for cleaning up waste hazards caused by the use of their products. The Legislature earlier this year was unable to pass legislation by a simple majority to require polluters like the oil companies to pay for cleaning up stormwater runoff caused by oil and other toxic chemicals.  Initiative 1053 would allow 1/3 of the members of either the House or the Senate to block such legislation. I think it would make it not just more difficult but almost impossible to pass such legislation under these circumstances.

Futurewise is also urging a No vote on Initiative 1107 pushed by the beverage industry to repeal taxes on pop and candy, They are urging a YES vote on Referendum 52 to fund rehabbing schools for energy efficiency and a YES vote on  Initiative 1098 for raising revenues for education and health care by taxing the top 1.2% of taxpayers on their income.

Initiative 1053 is a Corporate Power Grab to Control the Legislature

BP Corporation North America, Conoco Phillips, Wells Fargo Bank, Bank of America, Alaska Airlines, Liberty Mutual, US Bank. What do all these corporations and banks and insurance companies have in common? They helped bankroll I-1053 along with Tim Eyman.  They are doing a power grab trying to take away majority votes in our State Legislature and vest power in a minority of Legislators that would comprise only 1/3 of the Legislators in either House of the Legislature.

Why are they doing this? Because they can more easily convince 17 out of 49 Senators  to support their corporate no tax agenda than convince 25 Senators to do so.  It is a blatant power grab. Under I-1053, only 17 Senators (a 1/3 minority) out of 49 would be needed to oppose  repealing special interest tax exemptions like some out of state banks now get or opposing legislation to make polluters like the oil industry pay for cleaning up toxic waste caused by use of the products they sell.

Corporations and banks and insurance companies put their profits as their bottom line, not the public good.  Our elected  State Legislature helps to provide a balance between corporate profits and the public good. Framers of our Washington State Constitution understood that making decisions by a majority vote was the fairest way to make decisions. They wrote it into the Washington State Constitution in Article II, Section 22, which states the Legislature shall act by majority votes.

Trying to require a 2/3 vote for some decisions like taxes,  will specifically benefit corporations and their profits over the public health and welfare. Such a proposal is unconstitutional.  One could just as easily argue that because tax exemptions for businesses and corporations remove revenue from the State budget, that a 2/3 vote should be required to continue existing tax exemptions and create any new tax exemptions. Exemptions should not be given lightly because they place more of a burden on other taxpayers to make up for the revenue lost.

Of course the same corporations supporting I-1053 would oppose this. Yet it is just as logical as their proposal. The unfairness here is also that the current tax exemptions in state law were passed by a simple majority but under I-1053 a 2/3 vote would be required to repeal any exemption because it is defined as increasing taxes. It doesn't matter whether the exemption has outlived its usefulness or no longer provides any benefit to the state or the public.

I-1053 is the height or arrogance.  The two previous times it was passed by voters (I-601 and I-960), it squeaked by with a scant 51% to 49% vote.  It could nowhere near muster the vote numbers it is now trying to impose on the Legislature.  Voters should reject I-1053 for what it is - a backdoor approach to gain more power and profits for corporate interests at the expense of the rest of the state.

 Voters may think they are limiting their taxes but it is the corporations that are laughing all the way to the bank as they rake in more profits and pass the cost of their doing business in the state onto the public.  I-1053 will decrease the power of the average voter in the Legislative process and increase power in the hands of the self selected corporate elite that can more easily control a minority of 1/3 of the Legislators to further their special interest agenda and pad their bottom line.

Check out the list of big corporate interests and banks and oil companies and think to yourself why they want the public to vote for I-1053. Do you  think it is about the public welfare and health of our state and its voters or is it about their profits?  Do you think it is about educating our children and caring for the needy and seniors or salaries for corporate executives and bankers ?

Here's a list of the largest donors, many who are based out of state,  that paid to put I-1053 on the Nov. 2, 2010 ballot.  All told some $1,023,115 was raised by corporate and business interests and Eyman.


BP Corporation North America, Warrenville, IL  $65,000

Tesoro Industries Inc, San Antonio, TX $65,000

Washington Restaurant Association $59,000

Conoco Phillips, Huston, TX $50,000


Equilon, Huston, TX $50,000

Washington State Farm Bureau $50,000

Washington State Association of Realtors $25,000

Washington Bankers Association $25,000

Northwest Grocery Association Washington PAC, Wilsonville, OR $15,000

Kemper Holdings LLC $20,000

Community Bankers of Washington $10,000

Sierra Pacific Industries, Redding CA $10,000

Schnitzer Steel Ind, Portland, OR $10,000

Simpson, Tacoma, WA $10,000

Wells Fargo Bank, Minneapolis, MN $10,000

Port Blakeley Tree Farms, Tumwater, WA $8000

WA Aggregates and Concrete, Des Moines, WA $7,500
Martin Selig $5000

Alaska Airlines, $5000

Boise, Boise, ID $5000

Cowles Company, Spokane, WA $5000

Darigold, Seattle, WA $5000

Liberty Mutual, Dover, NH $5000

Plum Creek, Columbia Falls, MT $5000

Sherman Bakery, Shoreline, WA $5000

Simplot, Boise, ID $5000

US Bank, Robbinville, MN $5000

Washington Food Industry, $5000

Washington Food PAC, Portland, OR $5000

Washington Lodging Association PAC, $5000

Washington Oil Marketers Ass.,Port Orchard, WA $5000

Weyerhauser, Federal Way, WA $5000

Yakima Valley Growers-Shippers Association $5000

Broad Coalition of Groups Oppose Eyman and BP's Initiative 1053

A broad coalition of Washington State organizations has come out against Initiative 1053 which is on the November 2, 2010 ballot. Initiative 1053 was put on the ballot by Tim Eyman, BP, and other oil and banking interests in an attempt to give a minority of 1/3 of the Legislators in either house of the Legislature veto power over the state budget and raising revenue or repealing special interest tax breaks.

I-1053 is unconstitutional because it is trying to amend the Washington State Constitution. You can not amend the Constitution by an initiative in Washington State. That requires a constitutional amendment.I-1053 is trying to amend the language in Article II, Section 22 of the State Constitution which says the Legislature shall act by a majority vote in passing legislation. By I-1053 trying to require a 2/3 vote to pass revenue bills it is basically saying that only 1/3 of the Legislators in either House can overrule the vote of the majority.That is why it is unconstitutional.

Major statewide groups opposing I-1053 include:

League of Women Voters of Washington
Washington Association of Churches
Washington State Labor Council
Washington Conservation Voters
Washington Education Association
Washington State Democrats
Sierra Club - Cascade Chapter

Here is the complete list opposing I-1053 done alphabetically. More groups are joining every day.

•Adams County Democrats

•AFT Seattle Community Colleges, Local 1789

•Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1015

•Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1384

•Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1765

•Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587

•Amalgamated Transit Union Local 757

•Amalgamated Transit Union Local 843

•Amalgamated Transit Union Local 883

•American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network

•American Federation of Teachers - AFT Washington

•Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA)

•Asian Pacific Islander Coalition of King County

•Center for Social Justice

•Central WA Progress

•Childhaven

•Children’s Alliance

•Church Council of Greater Seattle

•Community Workers of America (CWA) State Council

•Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Labor Council

•Eastern Washington Voters

•Economic Opportunity Institute

•Entre Hermanos

•Equal Rights Washington

•Friends Committee on Washington State Public Policy (Quakers)

•Fuse Washington

•Futurewise

•Greater Seattle Business Association

•Health Point

•IBEW Local 46

•IBEW Local 77

•IFPTE Local 17

•Inland Empire Residential Resources

•Inter*Im Community Development Association

•International Community Health Services

•Japanese American Citizens League (JACL) Seattle Chapter

•King County Democrats

•King County Labor Council

•Kitsap County Labor Council

•Laborers Local 1239

•League of Women Voters of Washington

•Lewiston-Clarkston County Labor Council

•Lincoln County Democrats

•Latino PAC of Washington

•Lutheran Community Services Northwest

•Lutheran Public Policy Office

•Minority Executive Directors Coalition

•NARAL Pro-Choice Washington

•National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF) Seattle Chapter

•National Council of Jewish Women – Seattle Section

•New Futures

•North Central Washington CLC

•North Urban Human Services Alliance

•Northwest Progressive Institute

•Northwest Washington CLC

•Olympic Labor Council

•One America

•One America Votes

•Operators (IUOE) 302

•Organizing for Seattle

•Pacific County Democrats

•Peace and Justice Action League of Spokane

•Pierce County Democrats

•Pierce County Labor Council

•Planned Parenthood Pub Pol Network of WA

•Public School Employees of WA/SEIU Local 1948

•Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans

•Raising Our APA Representation

•Retired Public Employees of Washington

•Sahngnoksoo

•SEA MAR Community Health Clinic
•Seattle Human Services Coalition

•SEIU 925

•SEIU Healthcare 1199 NW

•SEIU Healthcare 775 NW

•SEIU WA State Council

•Sheet Metal Workers Local 66
•Sierra Club Cascade Chapter
•Sightline

•Snohomish County Democratic Central Committee

•Snohomish County Labor Council

•Snohomish County Young Democrats

•Southeast Washington CLC

•Southwest Washington Central Labor Council (Formerly Clark, Skamania, and West Klickitat CLC)

•Spokane Regional Labor Council

•Statewide Poverty Action Network

•Teamsters Joint Council 28

•Thurston, Lewis, Mason Counties Labor Council

•Twin Harbors Labor Council

•UA Local 32 Plumbers and Pipefitters

•UFCW 141

•UFCW 365/WPEA

•UFCW 21

•UNITE Here Local 8

•United Faculty of Washington State

•Washington Association of Churches

•Washington Association of Community and Migrant Health Centers

•Washington Bus Education Fund

•Washington Chapter American Academy of Pediatrics

•Washington Community Action Network

•Washington Conservation Voters

•Washington Education Association

•Washington Federation of State Employees

•Washington State Council of Fire Fighters

•Washington State Democrats

•Washington State Labor Council

•Whatcom County Democrats21

•Yakima South Central Counties Labor Council

•Yakima County Democrats

•2nd Legislative District Democrats

•5th legislative District Democrats

•28th Legislative District Democrat

•30th Legislative District Democrats

•32nd Legislative District Democrats

•33rd Legislative District Democrats

34th Legislative District Democrats

•36th Legislative District Democrats

•38th Legislative District Democrats

•41st Legislative District Democrats

•43rd Legislative District Democrats

•44th Legislative District Democrats

•45th Legislative District Democrats

•46th Legislative District Democrats

•47th Legislative District Democrats

•48th Legislative District Democrats

Former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels Get Obama Appointment

The White House announced today that Greg Nickels has been appointed by President Obama as the  Alternate Representative of the United States of America to the Sixty-fifth Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

The White House bio for Greg Nickels notes that:

Greg Nickels is currently a Distinguished Urban Fellow for Living Cities, a collaboration of 22 of the largest philanthropies and financial institutions in America.  In the spring of 2010, Nickels was appointed as a fellow-in residence at the Institute of Politics at Harvard University.  Prior to that, he served as the 51st Mayor of the City of Seattle from January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2009 and as an elected member of the King County Council for 14 years.  From 1978 to 1987, he served as legislative assistant to then-City Councilmember Norm Rice.   In 2009 Nickels was elected the 67th President of the United States Conference of Mayors.

Greg Nickels on his Facebook page comments on his new position.

Tuesday, when the 65th Session of the UN General Assembly was gaveled to order, I was sitting "behind the flag", i.e. behind the placard that read "United States". That seat is reserved for the country's senior person in attendance. As I looked around the massive chambers and the huge UN logo behind the rostrum, it was... surreal to think I was representing our country to the world.

A once in a lifetime honor!

Yes, It is an honor and we are fortunate to have one of our own from Washington State and Seattle representing us to the World.

Why Real Estate Developers Get a Bad Reputation

The New York Times has an article today entitled, "A Fee that Only Developers Could Love". It is a warning to buyers in new subdivisions that the rule remains "Buyer Beware". You need to specifically ask when you are buying a property if it has a "resale fee" involved. It can also be called a capital recovery fee or private transfer fee.

As set up by one company mentioned in the article, Freehold Capital Partners, it is promoting the fee among developers. Anytime over the next 99 years that the home is resold, a 1% resale fee will be collected and will go to the developer and Freehold.

As reported by the NY Times,

Freehold Capital Partners, a real estate financing firm founded by the Texas developer Joseph B. Alderman III, has been leading the charge. According to William White, Freehold’s chief operating officer, the firm has signed up more than 5,000 developers who are adding the covenant to developments worth hundreds of billions of dollars that will be built out over the next decade in 43 states.

This sounds like a bad idea to me. It seems that the resale fee has not been presented up front to buyers and has not even been disclosed at closing.  As anyone knows who as bought a home there are tons of paperwork present. At the closing on our current house, the mortgage company tried to slip in signing up for a home equity loan and wanted us to sign paperwork we had never seen or discussed before.

In one case mentioned in the New York Times article, the resale fee was "in a separate 13 page document - called the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions - that wasn't even included in the closing papers and did not require a signature."

While the New York Times mentions that some 17 states have either banned or placed conditions on the use of a resale fee, it does not mention which states have banned the practice or what the limitations are.

They do note that

A COALITION of real estate trade groups, including the National Association of Realtors, the American Land Title Association and the Center for Responsible Lending, opposes resale fees and is lobbying federal and state authorities to ban them.

“The idea that someone who has no ownership stake or interest can continue to collect revenue off of a property that they may have built up to 99 years ago exploits an already complex transaction and doesn’t pass the smell test,” says Justin Ailes, director of government affairs at the land title association. The fee could hurt real estate values in the future if buyers are reluctant to purchase properties that have a 1 percent fee attached.

The coalition wrote to the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, and to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Federal Trade Commission and others, urging them to bar the fees or use the consumer protection agency — to be created by the financial overhaul — to fight them ....

Opponents have made some headway. The Department of Housing and Urban Development recently issued a letter indicating that the fees violated its regulations and that the agency would not insure mortgages on properties that included them.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency is considering a proposal to prohibit the transfer fees on all mortgages financed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks. And 17 states have either banned or placed conditions on the practice.

The article has a lot more detail and is worth reading. Here in Washington State I do not know if we have banned or restricted this practice but it certainly seems that a ban is the most appropriate response.  It is contrary to the idea of home ownership to have a clause existing for 99 years that specifically benefits developers and real estate financiers. Thirty year home loans are a big enough burden for most people, let alone adding liens to a home for more years than most people live in their lifetimes.

Does King County Elections Know There is a November General Election?

Visiting the King County Elections home page today (Sept 11, 2010) or clicking on the current elections tab would give you no indication that there is a November 2, 2010 General Election. Both pages talk about the August 17, 2010 primary. The current elections page is highlighted by the words August 17, 2010 primary and special election. It seems King County Electionsis still stuck in August and before. They don't list the upcoming election , candidates or ballot issues. Is everyone in King County Elections on Vacation? Have all the workers been furloughed?

On another page King County Elections has the following:

Have I registered in time for the next election?

Date of Election 29 day mail-in registration and address change deadline Eight-day registration deadline *

August 17, 2010 primary and special election Monday, July 19, 2010 Monday, Aug. 9, 2010 >

Nowhere do they give the information on what most of us would consider "the current election - the one coming up on Nov 2, 2010". If they can't keep their site updated then maybe they should have included the deadlines for both the Primary and General Election when they put information up, particularly if they are not going to update it in a timely fashion.
 
The major delay in posting actual candidates for the November election  falls to the certification date of the Primary Election which took place on Sept 1, 2010. This date is already long past. Another possible delay can take place in cities and counties submitting propositions for the November ballot. Snohomish County's Election website has a page noting a 52 day prior to the election deadline for "resolutions". That date is Sept 10, 2010. But King County makes no mention of this possible issue.

But is seems it serves the public best to post those races and issues like statewide initiatives and other measures that are not in doubt as soon as they are known and note that additional measures may be posted as they are certified for the ballot if this is an issue. This means that there should be a complete list of candidates and nearly complete list of issues on the November ballot available as of Sept 1, 2010.

Meanwhile the Washington Secretary of State's website has already posted their November 2, 2010 General Election Voters Guide which lists all state issues and Federal, Congressional and legislative candidates. Obviously all candidates and most issues at this time are not in doubt as to being on the ballot.

The Washington Secretary of State's website also give a clear explanation of the Deadlines for Registering to Vote and Changing Your Voting Address.  While they listed the Primary voter registration deadlines, they also include the current deadlines for the upcoming Nov 2, 2010 general election ballot.

They note that the standard deadline for online, and paper applications and updates is October 4, 2010. The late deadline for in person registration if not already registered in Washington State is October 25, 2010 for the November 2nd, 2010 election.

Is it possible for King County Elections to do a better job? Yes.  Look at Spokane County - they already have up an online general election voters guide that lists state measures, Congressional, legislative, and judicial races. Why can't King County Elections?

Look at Thurston County Elections. They have up on their main page a prominent box that says how many days are left to register for the November Election. And they already have up a sample ballot for the November election. How is that they are able to do this but King County which represents about a third of the voters in the state is still stuck back in August?

Maybe it's time for King County Executive Dow Constantine and the King County Council to place a call over to King County Elections and see if anyone is there. If someone answers they need to ask if King County Elections is aware that there is a November election and that they should be keeping their website updated to provide current information to the voting public.

Children's Alliance Urges No Vote on Eyman's Initiative 1053

Initiative 1053 is a recycled Eyman initiative that wants to give a minority of 1/3 of the Legislators of either House veto power over revenue issues. Even if 60 or 65% of the Legislators supported a measure, 17 members of the 49 member Washington State Senate,e.g., could veto passage of the bill. This is a recipe for disaster in trying to fund critical state services like educating our children or providing basic health care.

Here is what the Children's Alliance has posted on their website about I-1053:

NO on Initiative 1053

I-1053: 2/3-majority vote to raise revenue in the state Legislature (sponsored by Tim Eyman)

Status: On the November 2, 2010 statewide ballot

Opponents: Children’s Alliance and coalition partners who opposed I-960.

No on 1053 campaign: Sandeep Kaushik skaushik100@gmail.com

Details: This initiative is modeled after I-960 and would require an onerous 2/3-majority vote to pass a bill with any new revenue in the state Legislature. This supermajority requirement would effectively prevent our state from raising revenue in times of budget crisis – even when a majority of state lawmakers deem it necessary. It would give a handful of lawmakers veto power over important fiscal decisions.

Impact on children and families: I-1053 would severely restrict the government’s ability to raise new revenue needed to support vital services for children and families, such as Apple Health for Kids, early childhood education, and programs aimed at ending childhood hunger. I-1053 would limit our state’s ability to respond to the needs of kids and families and could force cuts to support systems the Children’s Alliance and our allies have fought hard to protect.

The Childrens Alliance has taken positions on other ballot measures. You can read about more about their positions by going to  "Ballot Measures Affecting Kids and their Families".

The Children's Alliance urges you to support I-1098 which cuts taxes and raises money for education and healthcare and Referendum 52 to rehab schools for health and energy efficiency reasons.  In addition to opposing I-1053, they urge you vote No on 1100 and 1105 to deregulate the liquor industry in our state and NO on 1107 sponsored by the Beverage Industry.

League Of Women Voters Opposes I-1053, I-1100, I-1105, I-1107; Supports I-1098 and Ref 52

The League Of Women Voters of Washington is urging voters to vote against 4 measures on the November 2, ballot and to support two others.  They urge a NO vote on I-1053 to give a minority of Legislators the power to overrule the majority. This is contrary to the State Constitution. They oppose I-1100 and I-1105 - the two initiatives to deregulate the liquor industry in the state.  They also oppose I-1107 which was put on the ballot by the soft drink industry to repeal a 2 cent tax on pop and candy.

 The League is supporting I-1098 to raise new revenue to support our state schools and health care and reduce B&O taxes and state property taxes. They also support Referendum 52 to raise bonds to rehab our schools to make them more healthy and energy efficient, saving taxpayer dollars over the long term.

Here is more specific information on the Leagues positions on these measures:

Yes Referendum Bill 52: Engrossed House Bill 2561 passed the 2010 legislature and was signed by Governor Gregoire. The bill was named the Jobs Act. The bill provides for state general obligation bonds of up to $505 million to fund energy efficiency projects in the state's K-12 schools and higher education facilities. The bonds would be funded by extending the current state tax on bottled water beyond its current expiration date of 2013. Because this bonding amount exceeds the state's current debt limit, the bill must be submitted to the state's voters.

The national League's positions on Natural Resources, particularly those related to global climate change, together with the extensive work the national League has done in support of national climate change legislation, are the basis for League to support Referendum 52. LWVWA supported EHB 2561 in the 2010 legislative session.

Yes Initiative 1098: concerns establishing a state income tax and reducing other taxes. This measure would tax “adjusted gross income” above $200,000 (individuals) and $400,000 (joint-filers), reduce state property tax levies, reduce certain business and occupation taxes, and direct any increased revenues to education and health.

League of Women Voters of Washington position on tax structure states: Inequities in the distribution of the tax burden should be removed. Ability to pay is an important criterion. Flexibility and recognition of changing times and needs is important in tax policy. Income should be part of the tax base preferably through a graduated net income tax.

The League of Women Voters of Washington Board of Directors has voted to oppose the following:

No Initiative 1053: concerns tax and fee increases imposed by state government. This measure would restate existing statutory requirements that legislative actions raising taxes must be approved by two-thirds legislative majorities or receive voter approval, and that new or increased fees require majority legislative approval.

National League position includes that government must have the knowledge, resources and power to make decisions that meet citizens needs and reconcile conflicting

interests and priorities, and it must be able to function in an efficient manner with a minimum of conflict, wasted time and duplication of effort.

No Initiative Measure No. 1100 concerns liquor (beer, wine and spirits). This measure would close state liquor stores; authorize sale, distribution, and importation of spirits by private parties; and repeal certain requirements that govern the business operations of beer and wine distributors and producers.

According to the Office of Financial Management, I-1100 would lower state revenue approximately $25 million per year through the privatization of liquor.

No Initiative Measure No. 1105 concerns liquor (beer, wine and spirits). This measure would close all state liquor stores and license private parties to sell or distribute spirits. It would revise laws concerning regulation, taxation and government revenues from distribution and sale of spirits.

According to the Office of Financial Management, I-1105 would lower state revenue approximately $100 million per year through the privatization of liquor.

No Initiative 1107 concerns reversing certain 2010 amendments to state tax laws. This measure would end sales tax on candy; end temporary sales tax on some bottled water; end temporary excise taxes on carbonated beverages; and reduce tax rates for certain food processors.

According to the Office of Financial Management, I-1107 would lower state tax revenue by 55 million in the current fiscal year and $218 million in the upcoming biennium by removing the tax on candy, gum, bottled water, soda and reinstating tax loopholes.

League believes all initiatives proposed should “require how revenue losses or budget increases might be covered, either through program cuts or increases in revenue sources.” (League position on Initiatives, IR-4)

Washington Education Association Opposes Initiative 1053

The Washington Education Association is urging voters to oppose Initiative 1053 which would allow a minority of 1/3 of the Legislators in either House of the Legislature to block any new revenue going to support education.

Here is their explanation from their webpage:

NO on I-1053: Two-thirds supermajority legislative vote to approve new state revenue.

 If I-1053 passes, it will be nearly impossible for the Legislature to raise the revenue needed to fully fund public education, including things like all-day kindergarten, smaller class sizes and the promised restoration of I-732 cost-of-living adjustments for school employees.


It’s another misguided initiative sponsored by Tim Eyman.


I-1053 impact on public education: Essentially prevents the Legislature from raising the revenue needed to fully fund K- 12 and higher education.

The Washington Education is urging No votes on I-1053, I-1082, I-1100, I-1105 and I-1107.
Thet are urging yes votes on I-1098 and Ref 52. You can read more details about their positions on their
webpage.

Judge Rules Money Trumps Fair Campaigns

A Federal Judge in Tacoma has ruled that the unfettered flow of money is equivalent to free speech in elections. The problem is that corporations and wealthy individuals have more money than average citizens and hence can buy more "free speech".

The ruling throws out a Washington State law that limited individual contributions to campaigns to a maximum of $5000 per contribution in the last three weeks. The intent was to limit the influx of huge amounts of money right before an election that could put out false statements that opponents did not have the ability to respond to effectively.

Why this ruling is absurd is that both sides in an initiative for example had to comply with the same rules. It was not like one side was getting special treatment. Unfortunately now corporations and special interests can dump in huge amounts of money at the last minute without the ability of the opposing side or the media to respond to what can be false or erroneous statements. That is why the law was put in place.

The argument that the ability to spend any amount of money one wants in initiative campaigns is exercising free speech is absurd. Money buys paid speech. The Seattle Times article notes that already some $32.5 million has been spent on 6 initiatives this year.

The lawsuit was brought by Family PAC which opposed Referendum 71 last year. Referendum 71 passed 53% to 47% and expanded rights for domestic partners. It was opposed by conservative groups.

Madison and Hamilton Would Have Voted NO on I-1053

Two of the founders of our country, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, would have voted No on Tim Eyman's Initiative 1053 if they were alive today.  They spelled out their reasoning in The Federalist Papers in which they discussed the wisdom and necessity of majority rules for voting, instead of requiring a supermajority vote. Their arguments, which helped to frame the majority voting provisions in the US Constitution, are still as relevant today as when they were first written.

Initiative 1053 is an attempt to rewrite the rules by which Washington State Legislators make their decisions and vote. Article II, Section 22 of the Washington State Constitution says the Washington State Legislature shall make decisions by a majority vote. Eyman wants to change this to require that a 2/3 vote is needed by both Houses of the Legislature to pass revenue measures to fund state services or to repeal special interest tax exemptions that only benefit large corporations.

James Madison in The Federalist Papers No 58 had this to say about requiring supermajority votes:

It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale. In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences.

Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers No 22 likewise stated:

what at first sight may seem a remedy, is, in reality, a poison. To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. ...

This is one of those refinements which, in practice, has an effect the reverse of what is expected from it in theory. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. ...

If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, ... Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.

These arguments for majority votes still ring true today. Washington State voters should vote NO on Initiative 1053 and uphold our State Constitution.

Washington Conservation Voters Oppose Initiative 1053

The Washington Conservation Voters are among the many organizations across Washington State opposing Initiative 1053, which is on the November 2010 ballot. Initiative 1053 is Tim Eyman's attempt to errorously amend the Washington State Constitution by initiative. Unfortunately for Eyman, in Washington State you can not amend the constitution by initiative. To do that requires a separate process of passing a constiutional amendment.

Eyman is trying to change Article II, Section 22 of the Washington State Constitution that says the Washington State Legislature shall pass legislation by a majority vote.  Eyman and his corporate backers like BP are trying to require a 2/3 vote to pass revenue bills.

The Washington Conservation Voters describe their opposition to I-1053 as follows:

Vote No on Initiative 1053

Tim Eyman is back. His latest initiative, I-1053, recycles the failed concept behind Initiative 960 - forcing a two-thirds vote of the legislature to pass any increase in revenue for our state, such as taxing polluters. If this initiative passes, next legislative session's expected $3 billion budget deficit will have to be closed with another brutal all-cuts budget. Critical protections that keep our air safe to breathe, our water healthy to drink, and toxic contaminations cleaned up would once again be at risk.

The Washington Conservation Voters also has an article written by Joel Connelly of the SeattlePI.com posted on their website entitled "Eyman's I-1053 - A slick initiative" which explains some of the reasons corporations like BP, Tesoro, ConocoPhillips and Equilon  are pushing I-1053. For them it's profits over public good and corporate responsibility.

You can add your voice  opposing 1053 on Facebook by going here.

You can view the Vote No on 1053 website here.

You can check out all the Washington Conservation Voters 2010 endorsements by clicking here.

Another Oil Rig Explodes in Gulf

Another oil rig has exploded and is burning in the Gulf of Mexico. No workers were killed but an oil scheen is reported at the site. Thirteen workers you were doing repairs and maintenance on the site were rescued from the water. Current reports say the well was not in production at the time. There is still a question as to the existence of the oil sheen but it could be from oil stored on the site.

see Washington Post -Fire forces evacuation of Mariner oil platform in Gulf of Mexico.

While a disaster is never good news, it may take some the heat off of Obama's decision for a moratorium on deep well drilling even though this rig was in shallow water. If there is a leak, at least in shallow water it is much easier to stop. A second oil rig explosion obviously raises concern about rig safety.

Cascade Chapter Sierra Club Urges No Vote on Initiative 1053

The Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club has come out against Initiative 1053.  This is Tim Eyman's 2010 initiative trying to impose a 2/3 vote requirement for Washington State Legislators to pass revenue measures and close special interest tax exemptions.

The measure is unconstitutional. An initiative can not amend the Washington State Constitution. Article II, Section 22 of the Washington State Constitution says the Legislature shall pass legislation by a majority vote. Only a constitutional amendment can change the constitution.

Here is the Sierra Club's rationale for opposing I-1053.

Initiative 1053 is Tim Eyman's latest bad idea that will cripple state government by allowing minority rule. The measure would require a supermajority on all revenue measures, such as increases in levies on toxic run-off from oil and other hazardous substances. In fact BP and their Big Oil friends have ponied up big to Tim Eyman to ensure that they can continue to pollute without paying to cleanup their mess. To add insult to injury, this measures also allows a minority to block closing tax loopholes to polluters.

In order for our government to function, the legislature needs to be able to ensure that polluters pay, and that we are able to invest in cleaning up our air and water. Just Say No to Initiative 1053.

You can go to the Sierra Club's website to see their endorsements for candidates for the November election. They also are supporting Referendum 52.